安乐死非犯罪化问题的法理探究

安乐死概念提出后,围绕其争论就从未停止过,安乐死已不仅是一个医学问题,而是一个社会问题.通过分析安乐死的正当性、合法性,从刑事理性的角度论证了在我国现实境况下解决安乐死问题的可行途径.从安乐死事实上的非犯罪化,进而提出对安乐死案件审查的司法措施.     

法哲学视域中的安乐死合法化问题

安乐死合法化问题 ,牵涉甚多复杂的利益价值和思想观念 ,自法哲学层面而言 ,其中最主要者有 :其一 ,当下现实提出合法化要求的安乐死 ,是一种国家权力 ,还是一种公民权利 ?其二 ,安乐死合法化问题是一个宗教、信仰问题 ,还是一个世俗权利问题 ?其三 ,安乐死合法化问题的判定标准为何 :是实定法 ,还是超实定法 ?兹分别探讨如下。1　作为公民权利的安乐死与作为国家权力的安乐死荷兰安乐死法案获通过后 ,有观点认为 ,这一法案与纳粹德国有计划屠杀残疾成人和儿童的政策并无区别 ,它们的理论基础是相同的。无独有偶 ,在中国和其他一些国家的安…     

安乐死立法的条件分析--兼评"安乐死暂行条例(草案)(建议稿)"

安乐死是社会发展进程中所面临的一个不可避免的问题。在我国 ,自 80年代以来 ,安乐死的讨论、调查和研究逐步深入。在此进程中 ,尤其是自“汉中案件”以后 ,安乐死的立法问题几乎成为所有讨论、调查和研究的最后聚焦点或最后的理论归宿。“安乐死暂行条例 (草案 ) (建议稿 )”的提出[1] (以下简称“草案”) ,在安乐死立法问题上 ,迈出了实质性的一步。“草案”实际上代表着目前在安乐死立法问题上的一种主流意见。在这种主流意见 (不一定就是“草案”本身 )被立法机关采纳之前 ,应该有更冷静的思考和分析 ,应当促使安乐死问题有一个更深入…     

安乐死合法化的哲学辩护——以自由主义哲学为视角

安乐死问题一直都是一个争议性话题。从学理上,安乐死可以分为自愿安乐死和无意愿安乐死。自由主义的伦理学分为义务论和功利主义。以自由主义哲学观来审视两类安乐死合法化问题:自愿安乐死体现病人自由意志的选择,是人格尊严之自主性的结果;无意愿安乐死是由利益相关人代为选择,符合社会利益的最大化。通过严格立法来规范安乐死行为,也应成为我国法律的理性选择。     

安乐死合法化的哲学辩护——以自由主义哲学为视角

安乐死问题一直都是一个争议性话题.从学理上,安乐死可以分为自愿安乐死和无意愿安乐死.自由主义的伦理学分为义务论和功利主义.以自由主义哲学观来审视两类安乐死合法化问题:自愿安乐死体现病人自由意志的选择,是人格尊严之自主性的结果;无意愿安乐死是由利益相关人代为选择,符合社会利益的最大化.通过严格立法来规范安乐死行为,也应成为我国法律的理性选择.     

安乐死论纲

就发展中国式安乐死提出了１８条纲领性意见。指出安乐死是一种社会文明,需要进行学科的、理论的、法制的、伦理的建设,超越传统上升到新的时代高度。就安乐死的定义、本质、目的、性质、权利、分型、对象等基本问题提出了不同于国外的独立见解。对于安乐死的立法、法制管理的体制和程序,以及医学伦理、生命伦理要服从社会伦理,树立新的安乐死伦理观提出了具体建议。     

安乐死与中国传统文化

安乐死虽是一个历史久远的事实,但至今仍然存在着不少问题。在国内作为一个医学伦理学的问题明确提出来,还是近几年的事。它已经引起社会各阶层的广泛关注,可以说是议论纷纷,莫衷一是,这是很自然的。笔者认为在安乐死的道德理论的探讨和实践中,一个非常重要的问题是安乐死与中国传统文化的冲突问题。本文就这一问题谈些粗浅的看法。 一、不同文化层次对安乐死意向调查引起的思考 对安乐死的看法,与不同地区、不同民族的风俗习惯、文化水平等因素有关。现就我们对100人的调查情况分析如下:     

安乐死问题的历史及其研究

在现代医学条件下 ,“安乐死”问题已经越来越引起世人的关注。“安乐死”即为“快乐的死亡”或“尊严的死亡”。这是一个问题丛生的领域 ,因为这不仅在“听任死亡”、“仁慈助死”和“仁慈杀死”等问题上关涉到种种道德问题 ,而且由于道德问题 ,在安乐死的立法问题上也疑云重重。     

急诊病人的安乐死问题探讨

安乐死问题长期以来是我国乃至世界医学界、法律界争论的焦点之一 ,有关专家对是否实施安乐死、实施安乐死的对象以及时机等问题争议颇多。急诊是一个抢救突发事件中受难者及突发疾病病人的场所 ,医护人员在救死扶伤的同时遇到了许多涉及社会伦理、道德等方面的问题。其中对于那些已经发生脑死亡或已处于植物状态、深昏迷状态 ,转复可能几乎为零的患者 ,是继续全力以赴抢救还是终止治疗甚至实施安乐死还没有一个令人满意的办法。本文将结合我校长海医院急诊科收治的 3例病例讨论实施安乐死的有关问题。1　临床资料例 1,男 ,58岁 ,平素体健 ,…     

磐路论证：安乐死立法的可能性出路

目前,安乐死立法已成为一个不得以任何借口回避的国际性生命伦理问题。为了应对滑坡论证对安乐死立法的质疑,磐路论证主张把苦难、自律、伦理委员会和临终护理等要素有机统一起来,构筑成一条具有一定可行性的安乐死立法的磐石之路。     

Would we rather lose our life than lose our self? Lessons from the Dutch debate on euthanasia for patients with dementia

This article reviews the Dutch societal debate on euthanasia/assisted suicide in dementia cases, specifically Alzheimer's disease. It discusses the ethical and practical dilemmas created by euthanasia requests in advance directives and the related inconsistencies in the Dutch legal regulations regarding euthanasia/assisted suicide. After an initial focus on euthanasia in advanced dementia, the actual debate concentrates on making euthanasia/assisted suicide possible in the very early stages of dementia. A review of the few known cases of assisted suicide of people with so-called early dementia raises the question why requests for euthanasia/assisted suicide from patients in the early stage of (late onset) Alzheimer's disease are virtually non-existent. In response to this question two explanations are offered. It is concluded that, in addition to a moral discussion on the limits of anticipatory choices, there is an urgent need to develop research into the patient's perspective with regard to medical treatment and care-giving in dementia, including end-of-life care.     

Voluntariness,Suffering and Euthanasia

Abstract

Dutch euthanasia legislation states that an act of euthanasia is only permissible if it is based on a voluntary request made in a situation of unbearable suffering to which there are no alternatives.The central question of this article is whether these criteria can be satisfied simultaneously. In an analysis of several (partly overlapping) definitions of voluntariness it is argued that there are circumstances in which this question should be answered negatively.The possible incompatibility of the criteria reveals a tension between different defences of the permissibility of euthanasia.     

The Moral Foundations of Equipoise and Its Role in International Research

This article reviews the Dutch societal debate on euthanasia/assisted suicide in dementia cases, specifically Alzheimer's disease. It discusses the ethical and practical dilemmas created by euthanasia requests in advance directives and the related inconsistencies in the Dutch legal regulations regarding euthanasia/assisted suicide. After an initial focus on euthanasia in advanced dementia, the actual debate concentrates on making euthanasia/assisted suicide possible in the very early stages of dementia. A review of the few known cases of assisted suicide of people with so-called early dementia raises the question why requests for euthanasia/assisted suicide from patients in the early stage of (late onset) Alzheimer's disease are virtually non-existent. In response to this question two explanations are offered. It is concluded that, in addition to a moral discussion on the limits of anticipatory choices, there is an urgent need to develop research into the patient's perspective with regard to medical treatment and care-giving in dementia, including end-of-life care.     

After the slippery slope: Dutch experiences on regulating active euthanasia

"When a country legalizes active euthanasia, it puts itself on a slippery slope from where it may well go further downward." If true, this is a forceful argument in the battle of those who try to prevent euthanasia from becoming legal. The force of any slippery slope argument, however, is by definition limited by its reference to future developments which cannot empirically be sustained. Experience in the Netherlands--where a law regulating active euthanasia was accepted in April 2001--may shed light on the strengths as well as the weaknesses of the slippery slope argument in the context of the euthanasia debate. This paper consists of three parts. First, it clarifies the Dutch legislation on euthanasia and explains the cultural context in which it originated. Second, it looks at the argument of the slippery slope. A logical and an empirical version are distinguished, and the latter, though philosophically less interesting, proves to be most relevant in the discussion on euthanasia. Thirdly, it addresses the question whether Dutch experiences in the process of legalizing euthanasia justify the fear of the slippery slope. The conclusion is that Dutch experiences justify some caution.     

Assisted death and martyrdom.

Against the backdrop of ancient, mediaeval and modern Catholic teaching prohibiting killing (the rule against killing), the question of assisted suicide and euthanasia is examined. In the past the Church has modified its initial repugnance for killing by developing specific guidelines for permitting killing under strict conditions. This took place with respect to capital punishment and a just war, for example. One wonders why in the least objectionable instance, when a person is already dying, suffering, and repeatedly requesting assistance in dying, there is still such widespread condemnation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. In a Gedankexperiment, I suggest that certain stories of martyrdom in the history of the Christian Church shed some light on the role of taking one's life, or putting one's life in danger out of love. I further suggest that requesting assisted suicide and/or euthanasia from the motive of love of one's family or care givers might possibly qualify as one instance of justifiable euthanasia, although I acknowledge that the Church will not be making changes in its stance any time soon.     

Sedation and care at the end of life

This special issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics takes up the question of palliative sedation as a source of potential concern or controversy among Christian clinicians and thinkers. Christianity affirms a duty to relieve unnecessary suffering yet also proscribes euthanasia. Accordingly, the question arises as to whether it is ever morally permissible to render dying patients unconscious in order to relieve their suffering. If so, under what conditions? Is this practice genuinely morally distinguishable from euthanasia? Can one ever aim directly at making a dying person unconscious, or is it only permissible to tolerate unconsciousness as an unintended side effect of treating specific symptoms? What role does the rule of double effect play in making such decisions? Does spiritual or psychological suffering ever justify sedation to unconsciousness? What are the theological and spiritual aspects of such care? This introduction describes how the authors in this special issue wrestle with such questions and shows how each essay relates to the author’s individual position on palliative sedation, as developed in greater detail within his contribution.     

On euthanasia: blindspots in the argument from mercy

In the euthanasia debate, the argument from mercy holds that if someone is in unbearable pain and is hopelessly ill or injured, then mercy dictates that inflicting death may be morally justified. One common way of setting the stage for the argument from mercy is to draw parallels between human and animal suffering, and to suggest that insofar as we are prepared to relieve an animal's suffering by putting it out of its misery we should likewise be prepared to offer the same relief to human beings.
In this paper, I will argue that the use of parallels between human and animal suffering in the argument from mercy relies upon truncated views of how the concept of a human being enters our moral thought and responsiveness. In particular, the focus on the nature and extent of the empirical similarities between human beings and animals obscures the significance for our moral lives of the kind of human fellowship which is not reducible to the shared possession of empirical capacities.
I will suggest that although a critical examination of the blindspots in these arguments does not license the conclusion that euthanasia for mercy's sake is never morally permissible, it does limit the power of arguments such as those provided by Rachels and Singer to justify it. I will further suggest that examination of these blindspots helps to deepen our understanding of what is at stake in the question of euthanasia in ways that tend otherwise to remain obscured.     

对我国高等医学教育学制与学位改革和发展的思考

通过对国内外医学教育学制与学位的比较,以及对我国目前试行的住院医师培训制度存在问题的分析,提出我国六年制培养医学硕士的模式;认为这有利于提高中国高等医学教育层次,有利于统一医学教育学制和学位,有利于国际交流;也为毕业生衔接新体制留下了接口.